Today in class someone shared about her topic for her term paper proposal, that of the representation of the body in the Bible. I thought it was pretty interesting. And Dr Yeo shared how she felt there was an incongruity in the manner in which the Christian faith views the image of the body. One, the body as corruptible, the site of earthly desires, the flesh which requires purgation, the body which must, necessarily, be put to death:
"I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish...
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness...
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control...
And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."
Ephesians 5:16-24
Two, the irony that the ultimate redemption was Christ, but it was a bodily sacrifice, and the Christian faith hinges upon the resurrection of Christ's corporeal body. God in flesh was the redeeming sacrifice. Thus Dr Yeo asserted that there was a peculiar incongruity in how the body is meant to be viewed. Is it to be viewed as evil, sinful, and the source and site of transgression; or to be elevated as the Lamb that was slain for the forgiveness of sins?
I believe this incongruity can be quite simply resolved, at least, in my opinion. Christ's redeeming work and his sacrifice on the cross had to be corporeal, borne of the flesh, simply because it was the body and its sinfulness which had to be crucified. The transgressions had to be purged at their source. The ultimate resurrection of Jesus could be viewed not as incongrous, but a celebration, not of the slain body, martyred for sins, but a celebration of the exact converse: Christ's power over death, over mortality, over the body. Viewed in this light, it might be easier to read the Communion not as a remembrance of Jesus' body and blood per se, but as a remembrance of Him, of His sacrifice and salvation. Even though Dr Yeo mentioned that the Protestants view the bread and wine as symbolic, but the Catholics take them more literally - both are not symbolic simply of His body and blood which was shed and which suffered for our sins. Rather they are meant to point ultimately to the sacrifice which was performed through the body and the blood, because it was only in flesh and body that the sins of the world could be taken upon. The shoulders which bore the sins of the world had to be of man, for man, because of man.
That is why the Protestants' image of Christ is never that of Him nailed to the cross, shown in suffering; but only the cross itself, because He has overcome death, and it is not His suffering we are asked to focus on, but the salvation and His triumph over death and the body i.e. His resurrection, which is of importance.
Thus, we do not mourn his death, but celebrate His life; we do not grieve the body which was sacrificed, but rejoice in His triumph; and we remember not the absence of life (i.e. His death), but the fullness of life in His resurrection which is not bodily, not corporeal, but supernatural.
posted by sarah @ 8:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home